From: Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx>
Since 65e1845 ("multipath: call store_pathinfo with DI_BLACKLIST"), we
use DI_BLACKLIST for new paths. There's no reason why we shouldn't do the
same with paths which are (unexpectedly) already in pathvec. As argued
for 65e1845, this might save some unnecessary work for paths which are
blacklisted anyway.
Signed-off-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx>
---
libmultipath/discovery.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/libmultipath/discovery.c b/libmultipath/discovery.c
index 5f4ebf0..caabfef 100644
--- a/libmultipath/discovery.c
+++ b/libmultipath/discovery.c
@@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ path_discover (vector pathvec, struct config * conf,
udevice, flag | DI_BLACKLIST,
NULL);
else
- return pathinfo(pp, conf, flag);
+ return pathinfo(pp, conf, flag | DI_BLACKLIST);
}
static void cleanup_udev_enumerate_ptr(void *arg)
--
2.26.2
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
